« Prehistoric Midgets | Main | A Word On The Polls »
The Sea Was Angry That Day...
It's clear from a variety of sources that the hawkosphere is once again busy plotting its stab in the back rationalization of the looming defeat of George W. Bush. The theory here is that rather than losing the election because his policies have made things worse, Bush lost because the press (known as "the mainstream media" to the semi-deranged and "the MSM" to those too far gone to even pray for) made it appear that things had gotten worse by, for example, reporting factual accounts of Bushian blundering letting nuclear material spread all over the world.
Clearly, the Kerry administration will have some ugly days ahead of it.
I do think, though, that the right's imminent descent into out-and-out nutjobbery will ultimately do it little good. It's oft-forgot in the recitation of liberal moaning, but the upshot of the last great spurt of conservative political madness -- the Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton -- led merely to surprising midterm gains for the Democrats. That particular event, moreover, actually did involve a Democrat behaving badly so to some extent it damaged both sides. The right's braying about the vast global conspiracy to turn the US of A over to the tender mercies of al-Qaeda is just going to look -- and rightly so -- silly and demented in light of the fact that a Kerry Administration will not, in fact, lead to the imposition of sharia law in Kansas or whatever else it is Glenn Reynolds et. al. seem to fear.
October 27, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83457198769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Sea Was Angry That Day...:
» The Future from Polytropos
Looking into my crystal ball, I see . . . 1. A Kerry win. 2. A full-court conservative attack on Kerry that, as Matthew Yglesias notes, will backfire in the long run. The thing to watch out for especially is... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 27, 2004 7:23:56 PM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 11:04:03 AM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 11:06:06 AM
Comments
I've stopped reading the Glennster for awhile now. I find I'm much happier and less stupid.
Posted by: instawitty | Oct 27, 2004 6:27:06 PM
. . . the Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton led merely to surprising midterm gains for the Democrats.
Errrr . . . no. The impeachment, one can at least argue, helped lead to Bush's (s)election and possibly the GOP Senate. The stain, let us not forget, covered Gore at least indirectly. It was responsible in part for Gore's refusal to campaign with Clinton (VP was Holy Joe, don't forget, chosen in part to distance Gore from Clinton's personal moral failings). Even without these strategic blunders, years of Republican and media blather about immoral Democrats surely had some marginal negative effect on support for Dems. I personally know a couple who voted for Bush because (their stated reasons) Clinton was such a sleazebag and Gore was too. That whole Lewinsky mess, you know.
As for the Senate, don't forget that the GOP won the Senate by the barest of whiskers in several states. A few thousand votes the other way, and the Dems would be in charge. Remember, the wishy-washy undecided voters who determine our elections vote precisely on vague, character-based feelings. Those feelings surely were negatively impacted by years of scandal-mongering.
Posted by: pdp | Oct 27, 2004 6:32:38 PM
Galbraith doesn't look too smart in using the now debunked claim about the 380 tons of explosives. Since he's clearly not part of the reality-based community, I don't know what, if anything, he says is true...
Posted by: Al | Oct 27, 2004 6:34:20 PM
Trust me, many Republicans are looking forward to a (still hypothetical) Kerry win. They aren't happy with the Bush administration, for a variety of reasons (impurity, mostly). And they fondly remember the happy hunting of the late 1990s.
There would be plenty to hunt in a Kerry administration. Because--and this can't be emphasized enough--any bad thing that happens is a sign of incomptence. I suppose we can look forward to a countdown until the capture of bin Laden. Every day until he's captured is evidence of failure. Every setback in Iraq--and there will be setbacks: evidence of incompetence. Every penny of increase in gas prices: evidence of mismanagement.
I'd almost look forward to it, except I want what's best for my country and not what's best for my party.
Posted by: Thomas | Oct 27, 2004 6:42:25 PM
The right's braying about the vast global conspiracy to turn the US of A over to the tender mercies of al-Qaeda is just going to look -- and rightly so -- silly and demented in light of the fact that a Kerry Administration will not, in fact, lead to the imposition of sharia law in Kansas or whatever else it is Glenn Reynolds et. al. seem to fear.
Silly. We don't worry about Kerry turning America over to al Qaeda. We worry about Kerry turning America over to FRANCE. Sheesh.
Let me add that, when Bush wins, the braying by Matthew and Kevin Drum and the rest about (i) how Bush's Iraq policy will cause the country to be ruled by Hitler, Stalin, and Osama combined, and (ii) how Bush's fiscal policies will cause the Great Depression The Sequel in the next couple of years, and (iii) how Bush's social policies will lead to the imposition of sharia law in California, or whatever the heck they all believe, will seem fairly silly too.
Posted by: Al | Oct 27, 2004 6:43:02 PM
Errrr . . . no. The impeachment, one can at least argue, helped lead to Bush's (s)election and possibly the GOP Senate. The stain, let us not forget, covered Gore at least indirectly. It was responsible in part for Gore's refusal to campaign with Clinton (VP was Holy Joe, don't forget, chosen in part to distance Gore from Clinton's personal moral failings).
The stain that stuck with Gore was because Clinton had behaved badly and lied, not because the GOP overreached in impeaching him for it. Had the Republicans responded to the Lewisnky scandal in a less than completely insane fashion, they probably could have benefitted even more from it in 2000, and they probably wouldn't have done as poorly as they did in the '98 elections.
Posted by: Haggai | Oct 27, 2004 6:51:27 PM
For the record, Rush Limbaugh was sharpening his "blame the media" stick today. That's two data points; let's call it a trend.
Posted by: Grumpy | Oct 27, 2004 6:55:44 PM
I think many posters here, like abb1, are too enthusiastic about Westminster parliamentary-style arrangements. Divided government suits me just fine. Sure, I'd be nice if my party controlled both houses of congress, most of the judiciary, and the white house. It's not that our founders had any supernatural prescience in seeing how things would be in 2004, or had infinite wisdom on how a government should be framed. I just don't want to be ruled by Dennis Hastert or Tom DeLay directly. Perhaps conservatives who think that the Bush administration has made a mess of fiscal policy and the like should consider voting for Kerry while backing a Republican congress. It's not like Kerry having the presidency will cause a lot of big tax increases or radical-left judicial appointments to pass through congress.
Of course, the BEST thing (from my PoV) would be for these conservatives to become wholesale liberals, and vote for Kerry and Democratic congressmen, but that's not in line with their values at all, whereas divided government just might be.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Oct 27, 2004 7:03:57 PM
"The right's imminent descent into out-and-out nutjobbery" -- Matthew Yglesias
Is there anyone outside of hardcore Democratic partisans who actually thinks you're an insightful commentator?
Posted by: blah blah | Oct 27, 2004 7:13:23 PM
The following line of spin belongs to me, all credit me:
The first 2.5 years of Bush administration screw-ups were the previous (Clinton) administration's fault.
The last 1.5 years of Bus administration screw-ups were the next (Kerry) administration's fault. This bit of temporal anomoly was caused by the vast Kerry controlled Liberal Media Conspiracy (LMC).
Posted by: Steve | Oct 27, 2004 7:14:21 PM
Matthew,
As you can plainly see by my moniker, I live here, right smack in the middle of Kansas. What'd I miss? Sharia?!? Just because I vote for Kerry?!? I have very long hair (I'm a relic from the 60's), d'ya think I'll have to wear a burqua (ka?)?
Will the high school football team stadium become the beheading and behanding site? This is terrible!
No one else will have me. I'm a pariah! My gosh (ya notice....none of that god stuff from this Kansan!), wait a sec......we'll get $225 BILLION in foreign aid! We'll be rich, rich, controlling the nation's breadbasket, etc, etc, etc.
Happy voting, and burqua(ka?) be damned, I'm pulling Kerry's lever (figuratively people) on Tuesday!
Posted by: bruce in oz | Oct 27, 2004 7:14:58 PM
Nothing insane about the way Republicans went about the impeachment. They were caught in a bind: On the one hand, once Starr dropped that report in their laps so publicly, they had to be seen to do SOMETHING, or else their own base would turn on them. On the other hand, Clinton had their FBI files, and was willing to use them, so they didn't dare go after him in a serious way, or else he'd make good on his threat to play "Samson in the temple", and take them down with him. (And he did take a couple of them down that way, just to prove the threat wasn't idle.)
Their solution? Impeach Clinton, but take a dive, instead of making a serious effort to convict him.
I mean, really! You didn't think that was the best case they could have made, if they'd really been trying to remove him from office, did you? They could have nailed his hide to the wall a dozen times over... If they'd have been willing to let him do the same to them.
Pity they didn't; A total bout of mutually assured destruction, where both parties unleashed every bit of blackmail info they had on the other, would have been wonderful. We might actually have ended up with a residue of honest men in control, after the bombs stopped falling.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Oct 27, 2004 7:15:04 PM
Hey Brett, you should be rejoicing. Matt just said you'll be getting plaenty of company soon!
Posted by: Rob | Oct 27, 2004 7:19:39 PM
Let's see--our last democratically-elected President had everyone's FBI files so the Repubs were actually afraid to go after him?
This is admirable tinfoil hat material, Brett. Have you passed this along to Roger Simon and his fellow paranoids?
Posted by: Jadegold | Oct 27, 2004 7:25:22 PM
it must be the lunar ecclipse that causes Al to drop below his usual low standards and pretend that anything has been debunked about the explosives other than bush's claim of freedom being on the march.
as for brett's fantasies about clinton using FBI files and the gop taking a dive - well, maybe that's the lunar eclipse too, who's to say, i know brett's mind less well than al's.
but as for matthew's basic point: there will be 3 disasters in the next president's term. There will be a fiscal crisis, there will be an iraq crisis, and there will be a domestic terrorist attack. These are trendlines well established right now, and it's unlikely that much can be done about them.
But if Kerry is in office, Karl Rove's dream of a permanent realignment may well come true: the nut jobs of the right wing totalitarian brigade will scream and scream and scream, the media will continue to report screaming as news, and no democrat will win the presidency for another 20-30 years. so let's not be too sanguine about the implications of the increased insanity of the right wing....
Posted by: howard | Oct 27, 2004 7:33:48 PM
Jeez, Matt, you are _so_ good these days. Blog more, please.
Posted by: Charlie Murtaugh | Oct 27, 2004 7:34:29 PM
Kerry will be boxed in by a Republican congress so he won't be able to get much of his domestic agenda through. He will probably work on cutting the deficit as a default.
Iraq will be a huge pain for him. It is beyond the point where competent leadership can make a difference. He will have a lot more sympathy for Nixon. He is inheriting a stupid-ass war.
Anti-terror and anti-nuclear proliferation efforts will likely be a focus for him. Aggressively tackling these issues will get him support from the adult Republicans.
Posted by: Joe O | Oct 27, 2004 7:36:01 PM
Jadegold, you must not have been paying attention to the news coverage. Here, this will bring you up to speed:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/02/15/wclin15.html
They didn't just threaten it, they actually executed it against a couple of members of Congress, just to prove they weren't kidding.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Oct 27, 2004 7:52:44 PM
Al, you're as crazy as a shithouse rat.
Posted by: grytpype | Oct 27, 2004 7:54:24 PM
so dutifully, i trot over to brett's link, and this is his proof? you're kidding, right, brett? this really is the lunar eclipse at work on your brain, correct?
I mean, most everything else in the article is completely wrong, there is no link to the actual on-air interview, and there is no reference to the FBI (nor, as the GOP outing of the likes of Gingrich and Livingston demonstrated, would you need the FBI). In addition, Stephanopolous was, as the article correctly notes, no longer in the Clinton administration.
Why do you waste our time with stuff like this?
Posted by: howard | Oct 27, 2004 8:01:22 PM
the now debunk--ZzzZZZzZZZzZZZZzZZZzZz
Oh, just cunt off, Al.
Posted by: ahem | Oct 27, 2004 8:08:03 PM
"Why do you waste our time with stuff like this?"
It's a matter of form: You have to give somebody at least SOME chance to demonstrate intellectual integrity, before concluding that they're hopelessly partisan.
What did you want? Proof that the dirt that got supplied to the media about Gingrich and Livingston was delivered on FBI stationary? If you're not capable of adding 2+2 and getting 4, it's not MY fault.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Oct 27, 2004 8:21:54 PM
what howard said.
Unless President Kerry and liberals go absolutely nutjob also and preemptively discredit and destroy. Pres Kerry should make his number one priority to put Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld into jail.
Matthew, you just have no idea how ugly this is going to get.
A moot point anyway, Bush is getting the job, by any means necessary. All it takes is one decent-sized Republican-controlled state appointing its own slate of electors and getting them thru the House.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Oct 27, 2004 8:38:05 PM
umm, Matthew. wakey wakey. Please sashay over to your friendly local search engine and enter "corporate media".
Then hit the ENTER key.
Then read a bit.
Then come back and tell us who is "semi-deranged", OK?
Posted by: am | Oct 27, 2004 9:14:41 PM
any bad thing that happens is a sign of incomptence
fool.
Bush had the support of the country, and much of the world, after 9/11. but him and his party pissed it away. america was as united as it has been in decades, but he pissed it away. america didn't turn on him, he pissed on america.
Posted by: cleek | Oct 27, 2004 9:24:33 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.